ORC 2015

The appellant appealed a decision by horse racing Judges denying trainer transfer applications for six racehorses.

The Judges had denied the transfers under Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing, citing a positive test and subsequent suspension of the original trainer.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Judges lacked the authority to deny the transfers under Rule 26.08 because the original trainer was not actually suspended at the time the horses were under his care or trained by him.

The denials were set aside and the transfers approved.

The appellant appealed a decision by horse racing Judges denying trainer transfer applications for six racehorses.

The Ontario Racing Commission allowed the appeal, finding that the Judges lacked the authority under Rule 26.08 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing to deny the applications.

The Commission held that the two conditions precedent for denying a transfer—that the trainer must be suspended and the horse must be trained by him or under his care—did not co-exist at the same time.

The appellant, a licensed owner/driver/trainer, appealed a ruling that suspended his horse for 90 days after it tested positive for Ractopamine.

The parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a joint recommendation to stay the suspension.

The Ontario Racing Commission accepted the joint recommendation and granted the stay on the condition that the horse provides a clear/negative sample prior to racing and does not test positive for any prohibited drug during the stayed period.

The appellant appealed a ruling that placed his horse, Bad Fox, second in a race at Woodbine Racetrack.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the race was very tight, the judges' original determination should be upheld.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Renew her licence.

At the hearing, the appellant's representative requested an adjournment to secure witnesses and prepare a factum.

The Commission granted the adjournment, marking the new date peremptory on the appellant, and set a schedule for the exchange of disclosure and responding materials.

The appellant owner appealed a 90-day suspension imposed on his horse after a positive test for TCO2.

The trainer's suspension had previously been reduced to 45 days by the judges.

The Commission found that while the positive test was an absolute liability offence, fairness dictated that the horse's suspension should not exceed the trainer's suspension.

The appeal was denied but the penalty was varied to a 45-day suspension.

The appellant, a former licensed owner of standardbred racehorses, appealed a ruling by horseracing judges that prohibited him from entering the restricted areas of an association as a guest.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that while judges have the authority to expel guests from restricted areas under the Rules of Standardbred Racing, the specific ruling against the appellant was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Administration failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's frequency of visits constituted an abuse of the guest pass privilege or was contrary to the best interests of racing.

The appeal was allowed and the prohibition was set aside.

The appellant horse trainer appealed rulings imposing a $20,000 fine, a 5-year suspension, and a 2-year probation following two positive tests for the prohibited drug aminorex in his horses.

The panel found that while the absolute liability rule for positive tests prevailed, the appellant had exercised due diligence and no causal link or source for the aminorex could be established.

Consequently, the panel denied the appeals but varied the penalty, setting aside the remainder of the suspension and eliminating the fine entirely, while imposing a 6-month probation with conditions for ongoing testing.

The purses for the disqualified horses were ordered to be redistributed.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the denial of a stay of her suspension following a positive test for levamisole.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted a restricted stay for four months to allow time for the split sample results and for the judges' hearing to take place, with existing probation terms continuing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Stewards disallowing a claim of foul in a horse race.

The appellant argued that the winning horse interfered with his horse and that the winning jockey committed an urging violation.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that while interference occurred, it did not alter the order of finish, and the urging violation did not warrant a penalty or placing of the winning horse.

The appellant, a horse trainer, appealed the Director's decision denying a stay of a suspension related to a positive drug test for a Class II drug.

The Commission heard evidence that the appellant's veterinarian followed CPMA guidelines, administered half the recommended dosage, and allowed extra time for metabolization.

Finding that the appellant had a good record and committed no wrongdoing, the Commission granted the stay with standard conditions pending the full appeal hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a Thoroughbred Licence and prohibiting him from applying for a licence for two years.

The refusal stemmed from an investigation into animal cruelty and the death by emaciation of two of the appellant's horses.

The Commission denied the appeal, finding that permitting the appellant to participate in racing would diminish the integrity of the industry, as he failed to demonstrate remorse or steps taken to rectify the conditions that caused the horses' deaths.